Canine Cognition

Descartes, most famous for writing “I think, therefore I am, also wrote about the minds of animals. Roughly put, his view was that animals lacked minds, at least as he saw minds (as immaterial metaphysical thinking substances). He had two main arguments for this: first, animal behavior can be explained without such minds using purely physical explanations. So, by Occam’s Razor, there is no need to accept that animals have minds. The second argument he have is that animals do not use true language and this is the surest sign that they lack minds.

Descartes was well aware that clever animals, like dogs and horses, could learn various tricks and that all animals can make noises to express feelings. However, he held that these facts did not show that animals think.

In recent years, researchers have begun to accept what dog folks have known since humans started having dogs as pets: dogs are smart. For example, research has revealed that dogs can recognize the use of a pointed finger. While recognizing what a pointed finger means (“that”) seems simple enough, it actually requires fairly advanced cognition. The intent of the action must be understood and the object of the action (what is pointed at) must also be recognized. This sort of sign seems to be more abstract than a direct physical gesture, such as a display of anger or joy. As such, this sort of interpretation requires fairly impressive communication skills.

Dogs, as all dog folks know, are very good at conveying their feelings and desires. They are also quite good at understanding words and can have rather complex vocabularies. For example, my husky can distinguish between numerous words and phrases and react accordingly. She also has various vocalizations and behavior that make it clear what she wants or seems to be thinking at the time. While this might be dismissed as mere habituation, even habituation that complicated would require some significant mental horsepower.

While dogs do not use true language, they certainly seem to have a rather good grasp of our use of language as well as our gestures. Because of this, I am inclined to regard dogs as having minds, albeit less complex than those of most humans (of course, I believe that my husky is smarter than some humans). Unlike Descartes, my view is that having a mind is not a “you do or you don’t” sort of thing in all cases. Rather, minds seem to come in varying degrees. Of course, what the mind actually might be is something that is still under considerable debate.

To question, not mere curiosity, is all that truly separates us from the animal. Everything else is just an extension of intelligence. Regardless of wealth, power or accomplishments, most people are simply talking monkeys, and bad ones at that… Bad Monkey! Bad Monkey!

“However, it has never yet been observed that any animal has arrived at such a degree of perfection as to make use of a true language. That is to say, they have not been able to indicate to us by the voice, or by other signs anything which could be referred to thought alone, rather than to a movement of mere nature. For the word is the sole sign and the only certain mark of the presence of thought hidden and wrapped up in the body. Now, all people, the most stupid and the most foolish, those even who are deprived of the organs of speech, make use of signs, whereas the animals never do anything of the kind. This may be taken as the true distinction between humans and animals.”
-RENE DESCARTES
From “Letter to Henry More” (c. 1648)

I’m not sure what preceded true language in humans. Perhaps the pre-language humans just made noises like animals do.

“Perhaps the pre-language humans just made noises like animals do.” Would we have been animals at that stage? That is, was there possibly a point where humans possessed thought but were no more capable of communicating it than animals?
——-
If a being (with a physical human presence0 is in a coma or exists in some other state that renders it incapable of doing anything that “mark[s] the presence of thought” is that being no longer human?

A person is a rational being. A human body without a consciousness would no longer be a rational being. To complete the circle: A human body without consciousness is no longer rational and no longer a human being.
Would Terry Schiavo fit in here somewhere?

Locke would also include children as well. At least I assume so. For him, a person is a being with reason and reflection, that consider itself as itself, the same thinking thing. A human body without consciousness would not be a person. However, if the body was still alive, then it would still be a human. Assuming Terry Schiavo’s consciousness was permanently gone from her body, the body would still be the same woman as before, but not longer a person (on Locke’s view).

Presumably, in Locke’s time a human being was considered dead when heart and lungs were no longer functioning. No longer human, no longer a person.
Was the possibility that the inability of a person to reason and reflect or “consider itself as itself, the same thinking thing” might occur years before heart and lungs have stopped even considered then?
Rewording slightly, so I can keep it straight in my head: Since he didn’t have the ability to predict the future of medical science, isn’t it unlikely that Locke considered that a living human could some day be hooked up to machines, and that he/she may have a beating heart and working lungs for years after the capacity of “reason and reflection” or the ability to “consider itself as itself, the same thinking thing” have vanished?

How might that affect his views?
In terms of cognition, what might Descartes have to say about dogs and humans in a vegetative state?

True-in Locke’s time death was defined in such terms. They lacked the tests we have today and sometimes living folks were buried by accident (rarely, fortunately).

I’m not sure about medical cases of humans who were “brain dead” yet still stayed alive in that time period. Because of the lack of our life support tech, most such folks would probably die.

While Locke might have not envisioned the future of medical science, he did consider the possibility of a person losing part of the consciousness permanently. In such cases, those lost “parts” would not be the same person. From this it could be inferred that a living body that had lost its consciousness would not be a person at all. Also, given that Locke provides a list of what it is to be a person, it would follow that something that lacked those traits would not be a person (on his view). So, while Locke was not aware of 21st century life support, his theory has all the parts needed to address such cases. What he himself would say today is, of course, a matter of speculation.

Descartes would say that a body that lacked its mind would no longer be a person. If the mind was just on perpetual idle, then the person would still be there. As far as dogs, he would say that the organic automaton was broken (after all, as he saw it dogs lacked minds).

Interestingly, David Hume (who died in 1776) did write that if all his perceptions were removed, then he would cease to be.

A species cannot progress until they form a way of keeping a cultural memory. With no way of passing learned environmental variables to their young that can in tun pass on again then language will not grow. Short lifespan surely is no helping either.

“perpetual idle”
That assumes some thinking is going on. . .? Would the idling be at a high enough rpm to “reason and reflect”, “to consider itself as itself, the same thinking thing?” We still don’t have the technology these days to determine that, do we?

It’s clear the “right to die” or “mercy killing” wasn’t a consideration in those times.
So, to get right to the point. What are 20-21st century philosophers saying about these subjects? Which ones would one go to for thoughts about “pulling the plug on granny”? And don’t worry about liability; my parents and grandparents have passed. Same is true for my wife’s family. Actually, she and I are inching closer to being on the other end of the cord.